We have located links that may give you full text access.
Impact of biliary stents on EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic mass lesions.
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2012 July
BACKGROUND: Few studies have evaluated the impact of biliary stents on EUS-guided FNA.
AIM: To compare diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA in patients with or without biliary stents.
DESIGN: Retrospective study.
SETTING: Tertiary referral center.
PATIENTS: Patients with obstructive jaundice secondary to solid pancreatic mass lesions who underwent EUS-FNA over 5 years.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary objective was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA in patients with or without biliary stents and between patients with plastic stents or self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs). Secondary objectives were to assess the technical difficulty of EUS-FNA by comparing the number of passes required to establish diagnosis and to identify predictors of a false-negative diagnosis.
RESULTS: Of 214 patients who underwent EUS-FNA, 150 (70%) had biliary stents and 64 (30%) had no stents in place. Of 150 patients with biliary stents, 105 (70%) were plastic and 45 (30%) were SEMSs. At EUS-FNA, the diagnosis was pancreatic cancer in 155 (72%), chronic pancreatitis in 17 (8%), other cancer in 31 (14%), and indeterminate in 11 (5%). There was no difference in rates of diagnostic accuracy between patients with or without stents (93.7% vs 95.3%; P = .73) and between plastic or SEMSs (95.2% vs 95.5%, P = .99), respectively. Median number of passes to diagnosis was not significantly different between patients with or without stents (2 [interquartile ratio range (IQR) = 1-3] vs 2 [IQR = 1-4]; P = .066) and between plastic or SEMS (2.5 [IQR = 1-4] vs 2 [IQR = 1-4], P = .69), respectively. On univariate analysis, EUS-FNA results were false-negative in patients with large pancreatic masses (>3 cm vs <3 cm, 9.35% vs 0.93%, P = .005) that required more FNA passes (<2 vs >2 passes, 0% vs 11.8%, P < .0001).
LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study.
CONCLUSIONS: The presence or absence of a biliary stent, whether plastic or metal, does not have an impact on the diagnostic yield or technical difficulty of EUS-FNA.
AIM: To compare diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA in patients with or without biliary stents.
DESIGN: Retrospective study.
SETTING: Tertiary referral center.
PATIENTS: Patients with obstructive jaundice secondary to solid pancreatic mass lesions who underwent EUS-FNA over 5 years.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary objective was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA in patients with or without biliary stents and between patients with plastic stents or self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs). Secondary objectives were to assess the technical difficulty of EUS-FNA by comparing the number of passes required to establish diagnosis and to identify predictors of a false-negative diagnosis.
RESULTS: Of 214 patients who underwent EUS-FNA, 150 (70%) had biliary stents and 64 (30%) had no stents in place. Of 150 patients with biliary stents, 105 (70%) were plastic and 45 (30%) were SEMSs. At EUS-FNA, the diagnosis was pancreatic cancer in 155 (72%), chronic pancreatitis in 17 (8%), other cancer in 31 (14%), and indeterminate in 11 (5%). There was no difference in rates of diagnostic accuracy between patients with or without stents (93.7% vs 95.3%; P = .73) and between plastic or SEMSs (95.2% vs 95.5%, P = .99), respectively. Median number of passes to diagnosis was not significantly different between patients with or without stents (2 [interquartile ratio range (IQR) = 1-3] vs 2 [IQR = 1-4]; P = .066) and between plastic or SEMS (2.5 [IQR = 1-4] vs 2 [IQR = 1-4], P = .69), respectively. On univariate analysis, EUS-FNA results were false-negative in patients with large pancreatic masses (>3 cm vs <3 cm, 9.35% vs 0.93%, P = .005) that required more FNA passes (<2 vs >2 passes, 0% vs 11.8%, P < .0001).
LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study.
CONCLUSIONS: The presence or absence of a biliary stent, whether plastic or metal, does not have an impact on the diagnostic yield or technical difficulty of EUS-FNA.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app